An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

It is published by Joe D’Aleo on behalf of a number of people. A longer more complete version of the essay is below, which could not be published for space reasons. Also included is a list of the 13 signers who drafted it. Please consider widely republishing this essay. – Anthony

EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.

1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas FingerprintTheory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.

3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.

Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.

More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.

EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.

In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.

61 thoughts on “An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation”

Please consider widely republishing this essay
this means copy/paste (of course attributing and linking here) is ok to do correct?
I want to make sure I don’t do something wrong.
thanks.REPLY: Yes, that is what it means. – Anthony

You haven’t got a fart in the wind’s chance – you’re against His Omnipitence The Obamighty, you know, the one the majority of the US of A voted for in November 2012….the stoopid majority.
On a lighter note though, impressive list of academics. This message breaking into some form of MSM might also help. Until this happens it’s us that are in the echo chamber my friends.

Good work another necessary step in the push back against hysteria in public policy.
Of course its political, did those who protest this reality not read the IPCC’s own documents? Or the Teams “Cause” which runs through the CRU emails?
Science has never been more than a cloak of authority in the, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, SCAM.
This foul debasement of what amounts to my religion, is the reason I will see retribution or justice done to those involved.

Good work but it isn’t going to be sufficient.
Seriously, a great deal more MSM support is going to be necessary before such analysis precipitates any action.
And since the MSM love scare stories so much, I’d like to see some scare stories concerning the economic impact of EPA’s current AGW policies. They can be supported by actual data that is really quite grim. In fact, I fear it might even be… worse than we thought!

It makes the IPCC AR’s less funny when you read references to them in EPA Endangerment findings. Pretty problem. IPCC builds the armor for the EPA, and the EPA runs bulletproof. Courts aren’t an objective scientific forum, so the game has already basically been lost by this stage.
While the IPCC ‘speaks for science’ in the eyes of jurists, we aren’t going to get anywhere. (Yeah I know, give me my shiny star sticker for elaborating on the obvious. :p )

I wish you good luck. I expect the Court to rule that the law gives the EPA the authority to decide when the EPA has done a thorough job and reached the best science-based decision. All the EPA has to show in court is that its scientists considered that evidence you present and reached a different conclusion from the the conclusion of the letter-writers.
I hate to sound downbeat, and I hope for the best, but the Supreme Court does not have as its authority or expertise to decide who is and who isn’t “scientific” enough to decide policy. That was written into the law by Congress.
Here’s hoping I am wrong.

The EPA finding is false, and to build on falsehood leads to a structure that is unsound and will fall. Stand by the truth and the Truth will stand by you.
I suspect what is behind the “finding” is the wish to “regulate.” If so, it would be better if the people itching for this power were honest and simply said so. They should come out and say the general public is a bunch of fools, and need wiser people to boss them about. Honesty is the best policy. Be blunt, and let the chips fall where they may. (And the chips will fly.)

Naive I know but since the MSM love scare stories there must be a story in the danger of following the EPA line. We have experience here in Aus with the intro of Gillard’s carbon tax. People have lost jobs, companies have moved offshore, there is a strong liklihood of power shortages as coal fired power (85% of our electricity) stations are holding off maintenance/upgrades and the reality of pensioners and low income earners going without A/C. It gets hot here but the real problem is in winter when the same folk go without heating. You have far colder and longer winters and as the Russian cold snap has shown people die more readily when they are cold than when they are hot. Put some of your great intelligence and research into pointing out the consequences of the EPAs actions. Gillard is widely despised in Aus and will lose this years election. Much of that hate comes from her decision to introduce the carbon tax and the results of it’s introduction. If the debate is less about science and more about politics then make politicians worry about about their futures. I know you don’t want me telling you how to suck eggs but the hip pocket nerve drives most people and politicians react. After all Obama was elected by people who want more for less and some who want more for nothing. When they know all their benefits will be eaten up with higher utility charges they may not agree with the EPA’s saving the planet strategy.

Ingvar Engelbrecht says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm
john kelly.
Is that really so??
————————————
It’s technically correct that co2 concentrations in some compartments can and do reach over 10000 ppm under some operational conditions it’s more usual to see an average of around 3500 ppm in normal working conditions and venting is daily when allowable. the co2 concentration can vary by a great deal, as much as 10% in different compartments of the vessel.
US navy recommendations are to keep it under 8000 ppm whenever possible.
by contrast the International Space station operates at co2 levels averaging between 3000 and 7000 ppm with their upper limit preferred to be no higher than 10000 ppmm or 1%
Studies show that over a period of 26 days at concentrations of 0.7-1.2% CO2 in an enclosed space ( regulated ) humans show no adverse affects other than some experiencing slight headaches attributed to higher cerebral blood Double those concentrations, even for short periods start to mess with your depth perception and motion detection.
Your average family room with the family at home in the evening will have around 1000 ppm co2.
so it’s very interesting that doomsayers think a doubling of co2 to 800 ppm even should it happen, could be catastrophic to humanity. I don’t buy it.

“Not sure how you get a balanced hearing without money from somewhere.”
[snip. Dial it back, please. — mod.]
That said, I think the coal lobby, the most CO2 heavy energy producers, can’t complain much because for decades they’ve been playing the same regulatory games–big time. The best way now to game it is to let the drones point and scream about the “greens” or some kind of “wealth distribution” to poor people in Africa or elsewhere.

should of course have read “adverse effects” above. I’m not a complete dolt, although I might admit to some adverse effects of my own just now owing to elevated levels of blood alcohol. What? It’s 10pm on a Friday here and it’s xmas week, deal with it 😉

“There were 23,126,110 carbon allowances up for auction, each requiring a minimum bid of $10.00. Most bids were higher than that. After all, survival was on the line for many businesses. The highest bidder pays to emit in exchange for another business never emitting much at all.
Note that in this exchange, no CO2 is removed from the air, only moved to a different emitter. Carbon emissions do not change, nor are they reduced, not that reductions would affect global temperatures much anyway.http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/giving-carb-credit-for-californias-death-spiral/

Ingvar & Zoot,
CO2 is not toxic in the same sense as some other gases. Being heavier than Oxygen it will settle towards the floor of the environments in a greenhouse or a sub, thus, needing to be mixed with fans and circulation. Otherwise it can reach such concentration as to reduce the oxygen necessary to keep one functioning. It is also the trigger that causes one to breath. All this is easily found on the web.
Nonetheless, the above is not the issue. The global warming issue is whether or not CO2 is a radiatively important component of the atmosphere, is the human contribution significant, can anything be done about it (if it is), and are other actions better than eliminating carbon based fuels from society. Concentrations well below the several thousand found in a sub or plant-growing experiment are of interest, not those very high values.

” john kelly says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm
If CO2 is such a danger to human health, why do we expect Nuclear Sub crews to live in and act rationally in an atmosphere which can have a CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm?
”
I really think this is an important angle. If anyone who is in the navy knows some sub ppl or retired sub ppl being better. They should see if they can hooked up with CPI or some of the other groups and sue the VA and US government for endangering they’re lives while on subs. The government is always quick to throw regulations out that will cost them huge sums of money. The government would either be forced to pay them disability or throw out the EPA finding as non-science.
I think attacking the EPA from this kind of side angle has the best chance of success because it will basically pit two federal agencies against each other. Running the agent orange precedent should let them get the foot in the door and make the VA and EPA face off.

Follow the Money says:
December 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“That said, I think the coal lobby, the most CO2 heavy energy producers, can’t complain much”
It is my greatest wish that the coal producers (and /or the coal using producers of electricity) would get together and immediately stop shipping/burning coal. This combined with a publicity campaign explaining exactly why they are doing so, would stop the EPA regulation and the green lobbying stone dead.
I am not certain, but it is my understanding that in most jurisdictions a contract that requires an illegal or immoral act is either unenforceable or null and void. Could you imagine the outcry if a government required any company to continue on a path that will, according to the government, lead to the destruction of the world. The destruction of the world is surely, at least, immoral.

@John F. Hultquist John, thanks for the comment. Regarding your first point I’m aware of that. before i retired I was routinely called upon to work in confined spaces, particularly those which would have an hazardous atmosphere. mainly though it would be the double bottoms of ocean going vessels, the wing tanks for ballast, fresh water tanks and yes, even tanks used for human waste treatment. Most often it would be fuel oil tanks. I have a very humorous story about myself, a new worker and an old colleague cramped in fuel bays in the bowels of a large ship, sitting in a few inches of diesel fuel and sludge. The old guy said we should take a break and offered his cigarettes which i happily took and lit. Watching the new guy beat himself almost senseless in a mad dash to escape was comical. I was young and you had to be there.
In our line of work CO2 was an especial danger given that it’s the main fire retardant on most ships and is carried in huge bottles in great quantities. I’m aware of the dangers. I was merely addressing the point about the submarines and as usual got carried away thinking to poke at those who claim that co2 is toxic and or a pollutant as neiter is true despite it’s dangers in confined spaces.
Regarding the second part that is indeed the issue and until i see empirical evidence that co2 is a main driver of temperature and what’s more, the 3-5% of the 0.004% of atmosphere that is co2 is significantly contributing to any actual effect on temperature then I’ll continue to remain sceptical. And even then I.ll take some convincing that given the IR absorption properties of CO2 being what they are that any additional co2 can have much more effect than it already may have.
But yes, I understand the issue, I just wanted to address the toxicity and pollutant part of this story.

As a former submarine operator and construciton engineer, let me correct the impression that may have been created by the “fatal” (or harmful) label being associated with the very high levels inside submarines at sea. (Normal submarine CO2 levels are not often at the very high levels mentioned, but these do happen.
The “harmful” level being claimed BY the EPA under their politically-guided US Supreme Court opinion is STRICTLY “caused’ by the long-term “hazard” claimed BY the EPA because of melting ice caps (polar bear harm), rising sea levels (over several hundreds of years), and all of the “assumed” hundreds of problems being claimed BY the CACA extremists in the political and academic CACA-paid environments.
That is, the Supreme Court IS politically biased and politically (not-scientifically or rationally) based. The liberals can explicitly “count on” a reliable 5 liberal judges to vote whatever way their liberal supervisors demand. The equally liberal and biased mainstream media of ABBCNNBCBS will ignore such bias and lies, but then again, the US Supreme Court also legalized slavery, and the forced return of freed slaves into their slavery.
Second, notice that there is NO evidence called up at all in the EPA’s “case” – all is “supposed” and “induced” from their claims about ASSUMED future harms. Claims is all that were provided – but again, remember that the USSC ONLY used the biased political votes of their liberal groups. Legal, moral or ethical rational judgement has nothing to do with either the decision or the results. All is a deliberate political process. All abated and supported BY the supposed “free” press to suppress independent thought and push the CACA agenda of destroying the economies of the free states.
Now, political assumptions and processes aside, notice that submarine engine rooms DO have large pieces of steel and piping at high temperatures in a high CO2 level environment within a relatively large enclosed environment.
If ANYONE were interested in actually measuring CO2 radiation absorption and OC2 temperature radiation effects, measuring the visual, infrared, and thermal rates 9with and without convection and conduction!) within the lengthy engine rooms of submarines may find a fruitful research environment.
That is, you can source radiating surfaces of virtually any emissivity, at all temperatures from 34 degrees F to 400 degrees F, in CO2 levels that can be monitored and changed from 100 ppm up to the aforementioned 8000 ppm.
Security problems? Let the submarine crew run the instruments back in the engine room – all the scientific crew needs to do is go onboard and look at the results.

Do people have any idea how much CO2 they ingest when they drink a carbonated beverage? Or absorb when they have abdominal surgery and are inflated with CO2? I think perhaps there is a PR opportunity that is being missed. Most people have been scared to death by MSM stories, and don’t realize that they live with sometimes inflated levels of both ingested and atmospheric CO2 and don’t have any adverse effects. If we can’t breathe a “poison”, will we be allowed to drink it? How can the EPA work out that little detail?

Gents,
You are wasting your time! This is not (and never has been) about science or facts, CO2 is just a means to an end: socialist political power, so there is no point in correcting ‘them’ as ‘them’ is not listening. They need to create artificial shortages and rationing of energy to control people. Support ‘them’ and you will have heating and cooling, but if you do not support them then the pied piper, Richard and his men will come for you …

@Anthony: I think it’s quite noble to get involved this way –I commend you and hope it gets you good media exposure as well! I believe judges try to come up with what is a fair decision based on truth as it is applied to the law. You kept the argument such that it’s based on due process of the law – and helped take away some of the fuzzy logic that politicians do when they talk about global warming. (Look ice is melting and that’s proof of global warming…. and …and we all know what’s causing it …and we know how to stop it…) You steered away from getting into an ideological debate, and instead provided a reasonably defensible position which can be validate with sources.
The judges themselves may have actually BELIEVED and perhaps still do believe that CO2 is causing global warming. But I bet they do not understand the science behind it and should be willing to hear the defensible facts as you and the team present them.
Kudos!!

OK, I’ve put up a copy of the article.
Now lets all pray for 2 or 3 years of dramatically cold and snowy weather over the Northern Hemisphere with emphasis on the Bos-Wash corridor…
(Maybe we can get AlGore an office in D.C…. Near the Justice Department or Supreme Court offices 😉

The CAA says:“any person may petition the Administrator to modify the list of hazardous air pollutants under this subsection by adding or deleting a substance. [ yada snip yada ]
The Administrator shall delete a substance from the list upon a showing by the petitioner or on the Administrator’s own determination that there is adequate data on the health and environmental effects of the substance to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance may not reasonably be antici- pated to cause any adverse effects to the human health or adverse environmental effects.”
If CO2 ever does get on the list, we’ll just have to keep flooding the EPA with deletion petitions.

E.M.Smith says:“Maybe we can get AlGore an office in D.C”
Let’s book him a 3 year around and around the world tour.
On second thought no, The Gore Effect is too powerful, it might plunge us into a glacial period.

The problem is the Law of Bureaucracies obviously applies to the EPA.
The EPA started out life as a scientifically credible organisation, which did much to improve air quality in the USA.
But it was a bureaucracy and the first rule of bureaucracies is that they grow.
The second rule of bureaucracies is that when they have outlived their usefulness, they do not disband, but instead look for reasons to perpetuate their existence.
The third rule of bureaucracies is as they get older they become increasingly dangerous to the public good, as they become increasingly prone to take actions (or inactions) which stifle and/or damage economic prosperity.
In the private sector, the Augean Stable is routinely cleaned out; in the government sector the poo is allowed to grow and grow.
In other words, there is an awful lot of poo in the EPA and if you dismissed 80% of its employees concentrating on the career bureaucrats at the top, it is doubtful anyone would notice the effect, other than a sharp decline in the spewing out of stupid, poorly considered rules and regulations.

Even if this ends up going to the supreme court the chances of overturning the EPAs decision is minute. The SCOTUS will defer to the scientific government bodies as SCOTUS has no scientific credentials. The government’s scientific collective (NASA GISS, NOAA, NAS) will support the EPA finding. The only way I can see to get this repealed is to change the face in the white house or change the consensus scientific opinion. The latter will be hard because if the temperatures drop there will be much backslapping and congratulations from the consensus players as they will claim to have saved the world once again, this time by regulating carbon.
At this point I think the only way the CAGW crowd is going to save face is by getting regulations put into place in the US and then spin the temperature results either way they fall. We have already seen it happening with the IPCC, Hansen, and model projections. If the temps return to an increasing trend it will be “it could have been worse” and if they fall it will be “see we told you so”. Just look at the CFC ban or the spotted owl / logging ban. The spotted owl continues to decline in numbers, ozone holes continue to happen…spin spin spin.

How many public swimming pools are there in the USA? I ask because CO2 is probably used in a large number of them for water treatment . Here is a link. http://www.alisonosinski.com/?p=330
The EPA personnel and the DC Circuit Court must be out of their tiny minds. CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[78] Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[
In other words, CO2 is a valuable resource, not a pollutant and all of mankind would be greatly disadvantaged if the dolts at the EPA get their own way in this matter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Uses

I have three Lines of Evidence that fats, proteins and carbohydrates are required in the human diet. Therefore all fats, proteins and carbohydrates should be taxed heavily and made more expensive to produce. In fact there is a fourth Line of Evidence that says vitamins are also necessary.

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants”

The biggest green house gas. Is water is the EPA going to start regulating WATER VAPOR??? At 4% vs 400 ppm water vapor is the big target so why is the EPA not ‘regulating’ water? Is the US government going to now start rationing and taxing water?
Lots of fun to be had with this one.

temp says:
December 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
……I really think this is an important angle. If anyone who is in the navy knows some sub ppl or retired sub ppl being better. They should see if they can hooked up with CPI or some of the other groups and sue the VA and US government for endangering they’re lives while on subs. The government is always quick to throw regulations out that will cost them huge sums of money. The government would either be forced to pay them disability or throw out the EPA finding as non-science…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Great Idea, however it will only work if the money is available for full page ads in the news and ads are placed on the left leaning broadcasters on TV.
Remember the Climategate e-mails are unknown to the general public.

Richard of NZ says:
December 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm
….It is my greatest wish that the coal producers (and /or the coal using producers of electricity) would get together and immediately stop shipping/burning coal. This combined with a publicity campaign explaining exactly why they are doing so, would stop the EPA regulation and the green lobbying stone dead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are pretty much doing that. What we need to do is get the following information out to the general public in the USA:

….According to EPA, their modeling of Utility MACT and CSAPR indicates that these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. But events in the real world already show that EPA’s modeling is a gross underestimate….More than 34 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering over 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.
Last May, PJM Interconnection held its Future Capacity Auction for 2014/2015, …. During that Auction, future capacity prices in the RTO increased by an incredible 350 percent. PJM concluded the vast majority of this increase was due to requirements “to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations.http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/epa-powerplant-closures/

While the electric rates increase the homeowner will be rewarded by carefully orchestrated rolling blackouts facilitated by their Smart Meters so Corporations can continue to receive uninterrupted power.

Energy InSight FAQs
….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.
There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

If you really want to get nasty you can twist the knife even further:
Include the REAL unemployment stats graph from Shadow Statistics (23%) and the reason why.

….During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America….
It didn’t quite work out that way. Since 2000, the trade deficit with China has surged by 173 percent, from $83 billion in 2000 to $227 billion in 2009. The United States has lost more than one-third of all its manufacturing jobs — 5.6 million; U.S. wages have declined; the country has suffered a financial meltdown; it has spent $14 trillion on economic stimulus, only to experience the highest unemployment rates in generations and annual federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion. These trends are not “likely to end,” says Lighthizer.
…. U.S. trade deficit in goods skyrocketed to more than $800 billion in 2008, and is presently increasing at a rate that is considered to be unsustainable.http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615/WTO.html

The impact of the WTO/China on US wages

The Uncomfortable Truth About American Wages
….the median earnings for prime-age (25-64) working men have declined slightly from 1970 to 2010, falling by 4 percent after adjusting for inflation….
consider all working-age men, including those who are not working, the real earnings of the median male have actually declined by 19 percent since 1970. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964 — nearly a half century ago. Men with less education face an even bleaker picture; earnings for the median man with a high school diploma and no further schooling fell by 41 percent from 1970 to 2010.

Roger Knights says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:21 am
E.M.Smith says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:15 am
Now let’s all pray for 2 or 3 years of dramatically cold and snowy weather over the Northern Hemisphere with emphasis on the Bos-Wash corridor…
I’ve got a feeling it’s going to happen, because it would be such a perfect cosmic custard pie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MAMA GAIA has already illustrated she has a very nasty sense of humor.

Peter Miller says:
December 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
The problem is the Law of Bureaucracies obviously applies to the EPA…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amen.
When I was young I had a retired government bureaucrat, a chemist, for a boss. I do not think I have ever met a stupider, more useless, more political or vicious individual in my life. I got him fired within a couple of months because he was too stupid to outwit a very naive 23 year old. (I was the one to be fired as scapegoat in an in-house power play between the VPs of production and marketing.)

The following from http://www.icecap.us today, written by By Joseph D’Aleo, Op Ed Contributor
It is one several excellent summaries of the political side of this crisis based on lies and exaggerations.

Dec 28, 2012
Washington Examiner Op Ed;
EPA’s carbon regs not based on sound science;
EPA’s Jackson Resigns
By Joseph D’Aleo, Op Ed Contributor
In 2007, a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must treat carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as “pollutants,” and must therefore analyze whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric carbon might reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The court may be on the verge of facing this issue once again.
To be clear, the court did not mandate regulation in 2007; rather, it mandated that the EPA go through what is known as an “Endangerment Finding” process. The EPA did so and on Dec. 15, 2009, issued its ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the federal D.C. Circuit Court, which initially ruled in favor of the EPA.
Given the two dissenting judges in the circuit’s en banc decision just before Christmas, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.
If allowed to stand, the very existence of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that would significantly increase U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices—negatively affecting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.
To many scientists, this situation seems incredible, given the ample evidence that the EPA’s finding is flawed. In its finding, the EPA claimed with 90 to 99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century resulted from human activity. The EPA bases its finding upon three “lines of evidence,” none of which hews to the most credible empirical data available.
First, the EPA claims that the global average surface temperature has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last 50 years, in large part due to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. But “global warming” has not been global, nor has it even set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics. But over the last 130 years, the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperature records. Over the past 50 years, there were more new state record lows set than record highs. In fact, roughly 70 percent of the current state record highs were set before 1940.
Second, the EPA argues that in the tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising carbon concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently derived empirical data sets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature, and thus no difference in trend by altitude.
Third, the EPA relied upon climate models predicated on this theory. All of these models fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000, although the global average surface temperature has actually been flat. This is not surprising because the EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.
The bottom line is that no scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving what the EPA claims it knows with 90 to 99 percent certainty. Moreover, if the EPA’s three lines of evidence are so easily refuted, then the EPA’s strong claim of causality, that higher carbon emissions affect sea levels and severe storm, flood and drought frequency, is on ever shakier ground. This is an inevitable problem when a person or agency tries to prove too much.
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society
——–

Even if the hot spot were conceded, it is not really evidence to support the EPA statement. A 30% attribution to CO2 or solar warming amplified by the GHG water vapor could explain it. It would merely show that GHG warming is present, not the proportion of its responsibility. It is a signature of SOME GHG warming.

Martin Lewitt:
Your post at December 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm says in total

Even if the hot spot were conceded, it is not really evidence to support the EPA statement. A 30% attribution to CO2 or solar warming amplified by the GHG water vapor could explain it. It would merely show that GHG warming is present, not the proportion of its responsibility. It is a signature of SOME GHG warming.

1.
The ‘hot spot’ is the ‘signature’ of of warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”: only warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases” produces the ‘hot spot’.
Other forcings do not produce the ‘hot spot’: see IPCC WG1 Chapter 9 Figure 9.1 athttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
2.
The ‘hot spot consists of warming at altitude in the tropics which is 2 to 3 times larger than warming at the surface.
3.
The observed warming at altitude in the tropics is not larger than at the surface: the two warming rates are the same..
i.e. The ‘hot spot’ is missing. It does not exist in the independent satellite (MSU) data since 1979 and weather balloon (radiosonde) data since 1958.The missing ‘hot spot’ is direct evidence that there has been NO discernible warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases since 1958.
Nothing needs to be – and nothing should be – “conceded”.
Richard

Anyone with any scientific sense knows that EPA ceased being a science-based agency, many moons ago. It goes clear back to the formaldehyde controversy in the 80’s, if not before. The Second Hand Smoke “science” is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors “science” at EPA, second now only to the CO2 “endangerment” finding! Now, we have CO2 designagted as a POLLUTANT! WOW!
THERE IS NO SCIENCE LEFT AT THE EPA MANAGEMENT LEVEL; EPA HAS BECOME A PURELY POLITICAL AGENCY, AND THAT IS REALLY BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA! WAKE UP! And Lisa Jackson just got caught in a typical leftist hypocritical manouver, with her “hidden emails.” Does anyone wonder why she is resigning? LOL!

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants”.
Someone has to say it … that the Supreme Court made an ass of itself about treating CO2 as a pollutant. It shows that the Court, on occasions, cannot be relied upon to accept a scientific truth, and is not qualified to make a scientific judgement.
Didn’t anyone argue in Court why this “pollutant” is not a pollutant and is not a health hazard… how it sustains life on the planet… and that the worst to be said about it is that it is an asphyxiant when in very high concentrations?
This reminds me of the words of that Bee Gees’ song – “I started a joke … and the joke turned on me.” Well, the joke was started by the Supreme Court has turned on the Supreme Court. It just isn’t funny! The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself.

richardscourtney,
Perhaps “conceded” was a poor choice of words. Just because the first step in an argument is unsupported is not a reason to let an unjustified second step stand. “Hypothetically”, even if the hot spot were there, it would not be diagnostic of the proportion of the warming that should be attributed to well mixed GHGs, the direct effects of CO2 that would account for less than a third of the recent warming could explain it, making it consistent with the CO2 contribution being less than natural variation.

When regarding something as a “pollutant”, you have to ask what would happen if it were entirely removed from the environment. What would happen if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere?
Ask THAT question of someone who wants to regulate the gas.

Unfortunately, the consequences of agreeing with this letter are a demand to fire the top members of EPA for reckless endangerment of economic prosperity.
If you think that EPA, the US Administration are going to welcome that, you’d be wrong.
If this is decided in a court of law, how many Supreme Court Judges were appointed by Obama??
Justice is bought right up to the highest jurisdictions in most western countries, mostly by picking the right judges, so any campaign of this nature needs to factor that in when deciding whether what is taking place is expiating egos, covering backsides or really, really thinks that it can overturn a juggernaut of vested interests.
The most likely way to succeed with this is to engage directly with people, not trying to influence the media, the government etc etc.
When people stop believing what they are told unless it stacks up, then you have a chance, because the power of the people is always supreme, eventually. Ask yourselves how long the American Constitution will remain valid if the rich perceive their interests are threatened by the people rising peacefully. Not so long in my opinion…….
The other thing you might like to think about is to ask why climate rationalism is solely associated with Republicans, who are unfortunately tainted, rightly or wrongly, with being a party of gun-toting, warmongering rich American supremacists, which is why a large number of people around the globe won’t have anything to do with them.
The world is indeed a complicated place and adult life appears to be about charades, masks and lies being told as smokescreens for behind the scenes stitch ups.
When the rich have bought their land cheap near the equator, they’ll tell the truth.
At that point, it doesn’t matter to them, because they will leave if necessary to leave the rest to die.
This whole campaign has been about big oil vs the people. The simplest way to carry the people isn’t to lie about climate change, it’s to engage with what big oil has done, does do. If it were ever truly the case that Big Oil ordered wars to maximise profits, paid for by other folks’ taxes, well that’s something which won’t see the survival of Big Oil as independent entities. If the wars were all doing the Saudi’s bidding to maintain the Dollar as reserve currency, well, think about how much longer that will be true. The Saudis will jump to the Chinese if it suits them, but that will only be when America couldn’t invade Saudi without a Chinese response they would fear. You’d better think about how longer into the future it might be before such a scenario might pertain. I heard the whole thing started when Maggie Thatcher wanted a justifiaction to go nuclear in the late 1980s. You could argue that oil-poor countries are doing it to try and break the control of oil rich nations. Little of it is actually about climate is all I would say…….
Strip out all the lies and get down to brass tacks I say.
Then maybe this whole thing will get sorted out.
But rely on the good will of vested interests??
Forget it………

There used to be a fairly popular “model” that said black men couldn’t control their sexual urges and would commit rape. Many innocent men died because that “model” was given credence, even in the absence of any real evidence.
Using a “model” instead of a theory that has been validated by experimental evidence deserves to be called by its proper name: PREJUDICE.

Martin Lewitt:
re your post at December 30, 2012 at 12:42 am which replies to my post at December 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm.No! You are wrong.
As I explained in my post at December 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm

The missing ‘hot spot’ is direct evidence that there has been NO discernible warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases since 1958.

The EPA Endangerment Ruling is based on the unsupported assertion that emission of CO2 (i.e. the major well-mixed greenhouse gas) will induce global warming. There is no empirical evidence of any kind to support that assertion, but the missing ‘hot spot’ is direct empirical evidence that the assertion is wrong.
Please note that ~80% of CO2 emissions from human activities (i.e.anthropogenic CO2) have been since 1958 and atmospheric CO2 concentration has continuously risen since 1958. But there has been no discernible effect on global temperature of that rise in atmospheric CO2.
Also, the effect of each unit addition of CO2 has less effect on global temperature than its predecessor: this reducing effect is logarithmic.
The IPCC says 2 deg.C rise in global temperature would be dangerous so should be avoided. But if the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has had an effect then that effect is so small as to be indiscernible. If one assumes that rise in atmospheric CO2 was entirely caused by anthropogenic CO2, then the logarithmic effect decrees that it is not possible for additional anthropogenic CO2 to produce 2 deg.C of global warming.Therefore, the empirical evidence indicates that there is no reason – so no scientific justification – for the EPA Endangerment Ruling.
That fact is important and, in my opinion, its importance should not be diminished in any way.
Please note that I am only commenting on the science pertaining to the EPA Endangerment Ruling. I am not commenting on the EPA or the Ruling because I am not an American and it would be impudent for me to comment on the EPA or any other US government Agency and its decisions.
Richard

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy